| From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Date: | 2010-02-22 11:01:49 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002220301y22111c0fvf4a21fbaf2fcc7e8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Forgot to include the group...
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <
gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>> These sound like the same point to me. I don't think we're concerned
>> with footprint -- only with how much of that footprint actually needs
>> to be scanned. So if we have a solution allowing the scan to only need
>> to look at the index then the extra footprint of the table doesn't
>> cost anything at run-time. And the visibility map is very small.
>>
>>
> Yep.. They are one and the same...
> Just wanted a clarification on the design goals going forward.
>
> Thanks,
> Gokul.
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-02-22 11:47:30 | pgsql: Move documentation of all recovery.conf option to a new chapter. |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-02-22 10:29:54 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |